SUSHIL INDORIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications have been decided by a common order because both the matters are revolving around a similar set of facts and circumstances. One Manjula Gaikwad happened to be serving with Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in their hospital as 'Aya'. Applicant No. 4 happens to be working in the same hospital as a Medical Consultant Doctor. Complainant Manjula Gaikwad alleged that on 14.7.2001 at about 2.00 p.m. Applicant No. 4 Dr. Iyer called her to the hospital and at that time Dr. Sushil Indoria told Manjula Gaikwad that there was a theft in the hospital and when Manjula Gaikwad asked him about the nature of the theft and the amount stolen, he as per the allegation of the prosecutrix Manjula Gaikwad, told that it was the amount which Manjula Gaikwad could not have seen in her life time. Next important factor which is to be considered while deciding these two applications is that thereafter in the night time applicant No. 4 Dr. Iyer visited the house of Manjula Gaikwad with two more persons and they searched her house by dislodging the furniture and articles kept in it. Manjula Gaikwad made it clear that they wanted to search her house for the purpose of finding any incriminating articles in the house. After that Manjula Gaikwad was given some empty card board boxes along with other staff members of the said hospital telling each of them including Manjula Gaikwad that those card board boxes were charged with mantras and spiritual power. The applicants conjointly told Manjula Gaikwad and others that the person or persons involved in the said theft should keep the amounts stolen in the said box or boxes and return those boxes to the applicants. None put in the cash in those boxes and the said attempt went in vain. Thereafter as per allegations of Manjula Gaikwad, applicant No. 4 Dr. Iyer told Manjula Gaikwad, Sister Meeta, Yogita to go to the place of said priest 'Mantrik'. Manjula Gaikwad did not go to the said priest. Thereafter on 19.7.2001 the applicants called Manjula Gaikwad to the chamber of applicant No. 1 where two police officers were present in plain dress. She was asked to go to police station where she was interrogated.

(2.) THEREAFTER some rice seeds were given to Manjula Gaikwad and other staff members telling them that those rice seeds were charged with spiritual power and the person involved in the said alleged theft would start vomitting blood after accepting said rice seeds. That also went in vain. Ten minutes thereafter all the staff members including Manjula Gaikwad were given coconut to hold telling each of them that those coconuts were charged with spiritual power and the family members of the culprit would die. They were directed to shout loudly 'In the event of myself taking away the said money, my family members would die.' This was the sentence which Manjula Gaikwad was directed to shout loudly. As alleged by Manjula Gaikwad, all the applicants thereafter started abusing Manjula Gaikwad that she was the thief and other staff members went to the cabin of applicant No. 1 and asked Manjula Gaikwad to confess by saying that she was the thief stealing the said amount. She alleged that in presence of all the staff members applicant No. 4 Dr. Iyer caught her hair and pushed her head on the wall and all the applicants at that time were telling that 'she was belonging to low caste like mahar, she had committed the said theft, her name was uttered by four mantrikas.' She further alleged that thereafter between 2.00 to 4.00 p.m. she was detained there as if confined wrongfully and during that period she was mentally and physically tortured.

(3.) MR . Mundargi, counsel appearing for the applicants, submitted that whether the prosecution happens to be false, malicious or vexacious could be determined only after filing or non -filing of the charge -sheet. He submitted that if the Investigating Officer comes to a conclusion that the complaint which was made by the applicant No. 1 was false, malicious or vexacious, then only the applicants would be answerable to the charge alleged against them in view of provisions of Section 3(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for convenience). Mr. Mundargi further submitted that considering the allegations as they are, what at the most the applicants have done is nothing but exercising their right of making a complaint against the Aya named Manjula Gaikwad. They have exercised their legal right and, therefore, the act alleged against them cannot come within the purview of Section 3(viii) or (x) of the Act, Mr. Mundargi submitted that the allegations mad by Manjula Gaikwad do not indicate any way that she was insulted or humiliated.